Being in a smaller precinct, we're done and home already! For our precinct*, here's the order of the vote-getters high to low: Paul, Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, Bachmann, Huntsman. No big surprises there, to me, given the makeup of the area.

*not the location; there were several precincts meeting in the building

***

My son decided he wanted to go to the county convention as a junior delegate. He'll go with our neighbor, who is a delegate. I figure--what the heck? Civics in action. I'll put together a mini-unit on conventions in our homeschooling curriculum.

rcommal - same here. People in the precinct stood up and spoke for Gingrich, Romney, Paul, Perry, and Santorum. Nobody spoke for Bachmann - they didn't even spell her name right on the blackboard! - and one guy stood up and gave an impassioned speech for "none of the above". All were politely received.

rcommalThat all looks pretty chaotic, and a bit haphazard as far as protecting the integrity of the vote. Are you confident in the vote totals with no photo ID requirements and being able to register same day?

I had to show ID to change my registration, of course! (Those who weren't changing their registration--and I believe we were the only ones at our specific precinct meeting--didn't.) And we had to fill out forms and sign officially and all of that.

I suspect that it was more like our experience than not in most precincts. Those, of course, are not the ones that will get the media attention--which, to be fair, since there are so many meetings, makes some sense on the basis of practicality, if not on the front of balance.

Anyway, at our caucus it was Romney way out in front, then Santorum / Paul / Gingrich / Perry, then way at the back, Bachmann, 3 votes for Donald Trump, 2 for Huntsman, 1 for Rudy Giuliani, 1 for Buddy Roemer, 1 for 'no preference'.

I read on the webs that no photo ID was required to cast a vote, and only new registrants would be asked for any ID. And that ID did not have to be photo. It could be something such as a utility bill or paycheck stub. Even an Attester could vouch for someone who had absolutely nothing on them.

the caucuses start at 7:00pm, sharp. If you aren't in the room at 7, you don't get in (unless the assembly votes to let you in). It makes it hard to vote in more than one place. It's even harder with the system the Democrats use.

And as Der Hahn points out: the convention delegates are not bound by the results of the polling.

Huge win for Romney, obviously. Six months ago, everyone knew that Romney couldn't even compete in Iowa; today, he either won it or came in a very close second to a candidate who has spent a year doing doing but Iowa and is custom-tailored to a SoCon audience. It's hard to see that as anything but a massive win.

All the people I saw changing registration (including myself) had photo ID, and it was looked over very, very carefully by the people sitting behind the tables where they handed out the ballots, and they spent several minutes grilling one or two. I don't know what would have happened if somebody had shown up with nothing at all.

Santorum is going to come out golden in this. You know why? Because he canvased every county in Iowa for a long long time. People have been looking for a conservative and Santorum has always been a dark horse in the primaries. I like him a lot and I hope he can move into a position that would put the Urkle camp into scratching their heads. Romney will take it, but not by much. He will get pushed aside while everyone clamors to get at Santorum now.

Romney is a Big Government liberal Republican. Nobody would claim that Rick Santorum is a closet liberal. Look folks this is not American Idol (Sorry Ann), we are electing a president. A true conservative like Santorum is what this country desperately needs.

When Rick Santorum became a U.S rep from Pennsylvania for the very first time, I was sitting in a newsroom (actually, sitting intensely while waiting alternating with furiously working to update and edit stories and pages), in Pennsylvania, on the night desk, assigned to election coverage. It was a squeaker and an upset. (For some of you here who know the person with whom I co-blogged briefly, he was in [and out] of that newsroom that night, too. We were colleagues at the time.)

Sonuvagun.

***

Just watched Newt Gingrich's speech, and he said what I expected him to say. I'd bet he's likely to survive at least through New Hampshire and South Carolina or so, or die trying--though of course I could very well be wrong.

On a frivolous note, Mrs. Gingrich looks exactly, precisely the way she did, still, at 9 a.m. this morning (adjusting for the fact that--as I noted this morning--she is quite nice in person, much more personable than she seems on TeeVee or, Lord knows, in still shots.). Gingrich himself does, too, except that his collar was slightly askew tonight and his shirt front a tad wrinkled, in comparison to this morning--but all things considered, not very different at all, at all.

Dane County Taxpayer said..."Romney is a Big Government liberal Republican. Nobody would claim that Rick Santorum is a closet liberal. "

No, but they would claim—accurately—that like Mike Huckabee, he verges on being a big government conservative, a "Larsonite" in Goldwater's lexicon. Like Huckabee, he fits Hayek's complaint that the trouble with some conservatives is that they want to use the coercive power of the state to impose their own agenda rather than dismantling it.

Now, I'm not a libertarian myself, and I'm not entirely averse to using government to encourage certain preferred results. I'm no Paul supporter. But Santorum goes too far, and he and his supporters often make statements about the scope and purpose of federal power that aren't acceptable.

I agree that a true conservative is what this country desperately needs, but it doesn't need a conservative like Santorum right now, and even if it did, it ain't getting one.

Rick Santorum voted for Medicare Part D. He is not conservative. He is part of the problem, not the solution. He loves deficits and spending. Loves them.

Really? That's what you're hanging your hat on? As opposed to that texas nut job Ron Paul who claims he's for following constitutional principals and then shits all over them by not standing up for voting against the 2 month payroll tax extension? How many of his unfathomable ideas has the 30 career congressman known as Ron Paul passed? ZERO!!! If you think his ideas if he ever makes it as president will ever work, then clearly you can use his influence in congress as a benchmark for rational discourse. If Paul couldn't do it in the congress and convince his other colleagues that he is right, then he certainly won't do it as president either.

I'm not a Paul supporter. Santorum is a big government conservative, like W. McCain voted against pork and Medicare Part D, unlike Santorum. McCain is more conservative than Santorum and W. If you like big deficits and more federal welfare, then Santorum is your guy.

Cool. My own county is responsible for the delay in vote totals. Apparently the guy responsible for collecting the vote totals from 11 precincts was delayed at his own caucus and still hasn't collected them all. Must be a Wisc. transplant -

Dane County Taxpayer said..."Romney is still Obama-lite and because of that will lose the general if he is the nominee."

Only if idiots in the base desert him. By contrast, Santorum would lose if nominated because he has zero appeal to the independents we need to win, and one can hardly call them idiots if they don't vote for him because they won't be sabotaging their own cause.

You need to start thinking for yourself. Rick Santorum is a big borrower and spender. He's a weak version of W. It's understandable that you don't like Romney. Maybe you should support Perry. He's pretty conservative. Santorum is not.

Why would I vote for Romney so that he can carry on Obama's agenda? That makes no sense. I will vote third party if the Republicans do not have a conservative alternative to Obama. Romney would be by far the most liberal nominee in my lifetime if Big Government Republicans are successful in cramming him down our throats. Why do some of you believe it will take a liberal like Romney to defeat Obama?

"Dane Co. Taxpayer", I'd take your comments a lot more seriously if your blogger ID wasn't identical with several known moby commenters ('Maximum Twine' and 'Tidy Righty'). Because of that, I pretty much assume everything you say is a falsehood.

The article at the link was a topic of conversation at the table at which we sat during the period before the caucus started. I had read it when it first came out and while I found it offensively dismissive and self-serving, I basically shrugged it off (as I do with most such things, 95%+ of the time, until I just can't stand it anymore and must burst out, however briefly--and as you all know, the target might surprise). It struck me as pretty de rigueur, especially online wise and not all that different than what people feel free to say therein oh-so-confidently as they revel in all their glorious assumptions and presumptions about all sorts of things and places and people on a regular basis.

That one, I didn't take that seriously.

Tonight I learned that it pissed off a number of people profoundly and royally, and what is most interesting about that to me is those people--unlike me!!! for example--cannot be, and never could be under any circumstances, characterized as a "dramatic chipmunk," for example.

I just finished talking with my brother in Iowa. He voted 3rd party in 08 because he couldn't stand McCain. He said he likes Perry and is going to look into Santorum. He won't vote for Romney. My sister lives in Iowa, too. I know there is no way she'd ever vote Romney after she got to know him in the 08 campaign - well, she probably woud since Obama is the other choice. She got to know him in 08, too, and figured out his policies (and his personality) are just plain evil.

26 December at 7:16 am CST America's Politico predicted:Ron Paul will win the IA caucuses. You heard it here first. The internal polling at a super K-street shop sent the results to me two days ago. He wins by 2% over Romney (who is still invisible). Newt comes in third, then Santorum. Perry, oh well...

" She got to know him in 08, too, and figured out his policies (and his personality) are just plain evil."

Your sister, I must tell you, suffers from a disease called, "hyper-xageration".

To call Rommney, in person and philosophy, "plain evil", your perspective can only be from "a way off the beaten path" position.

To call Romney's policies "plain evil" confirms not only this delusion, but the radically immodest confidence one has in their own policy prescription. (In the old days, they called that "pride" and it wasn't a good thing).

Dane County Taxpayer said..."Why would I vote for Romney so that he can carry on Obama's agenda?"

Romney won't carry on Obama's agenda, so you should vote for him to thwart Obama's agenda. If you don't—if you instead "vote third party"—you're essentially voting for a second Obama term. Not smart. Back in 2000, a lot pf people on the left said that voting for Nader made sense because there was no difference between Bush and Gore. Well, there was. And there is.

"Romney would be by far the most liberal nominee in my lifetime if Big Government Republicans are successful in cramming him down our throats."

That's a much less impressive claim once we realize that you're eleven, but anyways, it would still be wrong: I'd say Bush was more liberal in practice than Romney threatens to be in theory.

"Why do some of you believe it will take a liberal like Romney to defeat Obama?"

I believe that it'll take someone for whom independents can vote because I can do math.

Tarkwell Robotico - - read my post again and do me the little favor of trying to figure out the pronouns that obviously I needed to make more clear.

She (my sister) didn't say Romney was evil - she said Obama's policies and (cult) personality were evil.

I did use other words to say she (my sister) wouldn't vote for Romney unless he's (Romney)the eventual GOP candidate, i.e., running against Obama. (Read that to say she will vote for Romney in the general election, if he (Romney) is the GOP candidate)

She (my sister) wasn't impressed with his (Romney's) personality back in 08.

Personally, I can find something negative with each GOP candidate. Each and every GOP negative fades to nothingness when put up against Obama's negatives.

While my sister and I won't vote 3rd party next November, my brother will. It could be a tough election, folks.

wv: rallogiz - the logic used to assign pronouns in another person's writing, just so you can attack and vent